PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER prays that charge-sheet dated 20. 11. 2000 be quashed. The charge-sheet reads as under:-

"it has been alleged against you that while being posted at BO, Rani Bagh, Delhi as Spl. Asstt. , you engaged yourself in doing business outside the scope of your duties and engaged in the business of heavy speculative transactions of stocks and shares through various share brokers. To quote: during the period from June 1992 to March 1998, you purchased and sold the following shares through M. Rohan Securities:- (Thereafter price of the shares transacted and the dates on which transactions were effected have been listed out at serial No. 1 to 134) besides these, you also indulged in speculative transactions in stocks shares in the name of the following persons :- 1. Shri Inder Gujral, C/o Shri B. K. Kalra 2. Shri Manmohan, C/o Shri B. K. Kalra 3. Shri Sudhir Kumar, C/o Shri B. K. Kalra 4. Meera Devi, C/o Shri B. K. Kalra your above acts constitute gross misconduct in terms of Para 19. 5 (a) and 19. of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19. 10. 66 as amended upto date. You are hereby called upon to submit your reply within seven days of receipt this charge sheet. In case, no reply is received within the stipulated per it shall be presumed that you have nothing to state in the matter and further action will be taken against you as per the provisions of the Bipar Settlement. Further, you would continue to remain under suspension. "

( 2 ) THE covering letter under which the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner reads as under:-

"you were served charge sheet dated 18. 8. 98 alleging your gross misconduct under Clause 19. 5 (a) and 19. 5 (i) of the Bipartite Settlement. You preferred a civil writ petition before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi against the said charge sheet. The Hon ble High Court vide its order dated 15. 5. 2k confirmed the interim order passed on 8. 9. 98, vide which it was directed by the court that no final report would be submitted by the Enquiry Officer till the next date of hearing. Now, in terms of the order dated 15. 5. 2k of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi, the enclosed amended charge sheet is being served upon you. It may also be mentioned that the charge sheet dated 18. 8. 1998 previously issued to you stands withdrawn. "

( 3 ) THE ground urged in the writ petition in support of the prayer made is that the CCS (CCA) Rules and the service rules of the bank do not contemplate a second charge-sheet nor do they contemplate a de novo enquiry against an employee.

( 4 ) PETITIONER was an employee of the respondent/bank. On 18. 8. 1998, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner. Following was alleged against him:-

"you were posted as Special Assistant at BO Rani Bagh, Delhi, from July, 1992 to March 1998. During this period, you engaged yourself in doing business outside the scope of your duties and engaged in the business of stocks and shares and also indulged in heavy speculative transactions through various share brokers. The above act of yours constitutes gross misconduct in terms of para 19. 5 (a) and (i) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19. 10. 66 as amended uptodate. "

( 5 ) PETITIONER alleged that the charge-sheet was vague. He filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 4496/1998 in this court. Petitioner prayed that the charge-sheet dated 18. 8. 1998 be quashed. Grounds on which quashing was sought was that the charge-sheet was vague and the petitioner would be prejudiced if he was called upon to defend a vague charge-sheet. No particulars/details of alleged heavy speculative transaction had been given. To put it in the words of the petitioner as per his pleadings in WP (C) No. 4496/1998, petitioner stated:-

"the Charge Sheet dated 18. 8. 1998 issued by the Respondent is vague, indefinite and lacks material particulars. No details/particulars of the alleged heavy speculative transactions has been given. No details/particulars of the alleged share broker have been given in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document